97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[jreeves]

This is typical of the "Chicken Little"(the sky is falling....) crowd. Attack the source, at all cost. The bolded area of your previous post is a great example of attacking the source. FYI the author does have training, a backgroud, research in climate science.....see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis.


By the way do you know what environmental economics is? Let me help...

Environmental economics is a subfield of economics concerned with environmental issues. Quoting from the National Bureau of Economic Research Environmental Economics program:

“ [...] Environmental Economics [...] undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world [...]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming.[1]
Environmental economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, you being bright and everything, jumped all over the economics portion of the title without looking any further.

And of course you jumped all over any liberal lies spread on a vast network of "chicken little" rumormongers but the fact is McKitrick has authored science journal articles on the topic of global warming that has been peer reviewed......see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored 16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals (as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]


....another "Chicken Little" plucked

Furthermore, Ms.....Chicken little
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

Coordinator Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
and Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver BC.
Writing Team Joseph D’Aleo, M.Sc. Chief Meteorologist (Ret’d) WSI Corporation. Past Chairman, American
Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Member,
American Meteorological Society Council. Fellow, American Meteorological Society. Certified
Consulting Meteorologist.
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Research Scientist (ret’d), Environment Canada. Editor, Climate
Research 2003-2005. Member, Editorial Board, Natural Hazards since 1999. Previously,
Lecturer in Meteorology, Barbados (West Indies); International Civil Aviation Organization
Expert in Aeronautical Meteorology, Qatar.
William Kininmonth, M.Sc. M.Admin. Head (ret’d) National Climate Centre, Australian
Bureau of Meteorology. Previously: Consultant to the World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology; Scientific and Technical Review Coordinator, United Nations
Task Force on El Niño.
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario,
and Associate Director, Program in Theoretical Physics. Formerly, NSERC Postdoctoral
Fellow, Canadian Climate Centre.
Wibjörn Karlén, Ph.D. Professor emeritus, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary
Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu
Astrophysical Observatory, Tõravere, Estonia.
Ian Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Arctic Paleohydrology and Geology, University of Ottawa.
Tad Murty, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Departments of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering,
University of Ottawa; Editor, Natural Hazards; Associate Editor Marine Geodesy; Leader,
World Meteorological Organization group to prepare a manual on storm surges from
hurricanes and extra-tropical cyclones. Formerly: Senior Research Scientist, Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide, Australia; Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility.
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography
and Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies,
Florida State University. Florida State Climatologist. Fellow of the American Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

That's a report published by an industry funded conservative think tank.

It's not a scientific report that's gone through the standard variety of scientific peer review.

I googled a couple scientists on the list, and couldn't find any original research on climate change they had published in established and respected scientific journals.

Although I did find some opinon articles they wrote, which hadn't been subject to the peer reivew process.

Perhaps you could help me out. I personally could link you up with thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles from dozens of the world's most respected climate science researchers, if I had the time.

Could you hook me up with like at least three or four peer-reviewed scientific articles these people have published from their own original field or laboratory research on climate change?

You really are dense as a rock aren't you? Don't you remember this from a previous post?
McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored 16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals (as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]

That would be 4 articles correct?

 

[Chris]

Were the articles about global warming?

 

[del]

Were the articles about global warming?

are you about stupid?

 

[Chris]

Were the articles about global warming?

are you about stupid?

Are you?

The only article he quoted about global warming was "outside academia." That means it was not peer reviewed.

The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming. How could there be? We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No scientific journal would deny that.

 

[jreeves]

Furthermore, Ms.....Chicken little
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

Coordinator Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
and Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver BC.
Writing Team Joseph D’Aleo, M.Sc. Chief Meteorologist (Ret’d) WSI Corporation. Past Chairman, American
Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Member,
American Meteorological Society Council. Fellow, American Meteorological Society. Certified
Consulting Meteorologist.
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Research Scientist (ret’d), Environment Canada. Editor, Climate
Research 2003-2005. Member, Editorial Board, Natural Hazards since 1999. Previously,
Lecturer in Meteorology, Barbados (West Indies); International Civil Aviation Organization
Expert in Aeronautical Meteorology, Qatar.
William Kininmonth, M.Sc. M.Admin. Head (ret’d) National Climate Centre, Australian
Bureau of Meteorology. Previously: Consultant to the World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology; Scientific and Technical Review Coordinator, United Nations
Task Force on El Niño.
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario,
and Associate Director, Program in Theoretical Physics. Formerly, NSERC Postdoctoral
Fellow, Canadian Climate Centre.
Wibjörn Karlén, Ph.D. Professor emeritus, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary
Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu
Astrophysical Observatory, Tõravere, Estonia.
Ian Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Arctic Paleohydrology and Geology, University of Ottawa.
Tad Murty, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Departments of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering,
University of Ottawa; Editor, Natural Hazards; Associate Editor Marine Geodesy; Leader,
World Meteorological Organization group to prepare a manual on storm surges from
hurricanes and extra-tropical cyclones. Formerly: Senior Research Scientist, Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide, Australia; Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility.
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography
and Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies,
Florida State University. Florida State Climatologist. Fellow of the American Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

That's a report published by an industry funded conservative think tank.

It's not a scientific report that's gone through the standard variety of scientific peer review.

I googled a couple scientists on the list, and couldn't find any original research on climate change they had published in established and respected scientific journals.

Although I did find some opinon articles they wrote, which hadn't been subject to the peer reivew process.

Perhaps you could help me out. I personally could link you up with thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles from dozens of the world's most respected climate science researchers, if I had the time.

Could you hook me up with like at least three or four peer-reviewed scientific articles these people have published from their own original field or laboratory research on climate change?

You really are dense as a rock aren't you? Don't you remember this from a previous post?
McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored 16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals (as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]That would be 4 articles correct?

Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming
Is that clear enough for you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

97% of the climatologists disagree with you.

So sorry....[/QUOTE]


I'll raise you 30 K.
So VERY sorry

May 27, 2008
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree
Filed under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science — tadcronn @ 12:50 am
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
www.GetEnergyActive.org

 

[Chris]

jreeves, thanks for proving my point...

Taken By Storm is a book about the global warming controversy by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick.

It is not a peer reviewed article.

Taken By Storm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[del]

Were the articles about global warming?

are you about stupid?

Are you?

The only article he quoted about global warming was "outside academia." That means it was not peer reviewed.

The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming. How could there be? We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No scientific journal would deny that.

<yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn>

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming. How could there be? We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No scientific journal would deny that.

<yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn>

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

The "true believers" are on the way out, fewer and fewer believe in the hoax. Latest polls put it at 41%, from up to 80% at one time.

So you lose the battle, but may win the war, since the policrats will use your gullibility to tax the rest of us.

 

[del]

talk about your unintended irony.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming.

Actually, there are. I had links to several and some no longer work. But here's one:

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf

I looked into that stuff when Naomi Oreskes claimed that there were no peer reviewed publications contrary to the anthropogenic "global warming" hypothesis in 2004. It's just not true. I don't deny that the majority of published papers presented conclusions consistent with the "global warming" bandwagon. But the assertion that there have been no peer reviewed papers published that were contrarian is just objectively false.

I also think the significance of "peer review" is way overrated to begin with. I have had many occasions upon which I have had to apply research to real problems and if you people think "peer review" means questionable information can't get through or that lack of "peer review" in the sense of published literature means something has to be unreliable you are sadly mistaken. I think it's VERY possible for something that's been "peer reviewed" to be way off and VERY possible for something that hasn't been to be dead on.

All "peer review" means is that two or three...maybe four... people looked at it in a cursory manner. If they tend to agree with it they don't pay much attention. If they tend to disagree with it they'll nitpick it. I[ve seen papers get through "peer review" with graphs reversed, etc. It's clear that if anybody would've paid the slightest bit of attention they'd have picked up on it. Or like trying to use a regression equation in a published paper and seeing that it's obvious that some kind of error was made.

I'm serious. One of the great tragedies of our time is that people have a WAY overinflated opinion of the credibility associated with getting a paper through "peer review." The most important things are 1) don't reach a conclusion that won't be popular and 2) make sure you follow all the rules with respect to format, etc.

 

[Chris]

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

[JohnStOnge]

I think the study referenced in the article at Analysis Finds Twentieth Century Climate Unremarkable - by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas - Global Warming Facts is one I used to have linked but the link didn't work anymore. Anyway, it's a reference to a study that is contrary to the general anthropogenic global warming "sound the alarm" outlook and was published in a peer review journal. You can attack the journal (Energy in the Envorinment) if you wish. But it's a peer review journal. So it's another illustration of the fact that the assertion that no "contrarian" view has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals is objectively false.

Naomi Oreskes did a tremendous disservice in claiming what she claimed. She was wrong. Anybody with a computer can use Google and demonstrate her conclusion to be false. Also, there was an independent assessment of the same scientific articles she looked at that ended in the conclusion that she mispreprestented the many of the conclusions.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Here's something I'd been looking for:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ls-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.htm

Now, you can dismiss the possibility of that sort of thing if you wish. But I think you are naive if you do. Global warming alarmism is the popular position right now. It's the position that gets through without much scrutiny.

Oh, this is great. The link won't work when I post it here. It gets truncated. I guess I'll have to resort to a quote:

"Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet"'.

I don't know what to tell you to get you to the article except to do a Google search on something like, "Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming."

 

[Chris]

John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago.

This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.

 

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

 

[PoliticalChic]

John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago.

This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.

July 1, 2008


GLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS






DOW JONES REPRINTS



Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008; Page A15
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").


AP
The New True Believers
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com1
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal2.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum3.
URL for this article:
Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ.com

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto: bstephens@wsj.com
(2) Op-Ed News, Political Opinion Columns International Social Commentary at WSJ.com - WSJ.com
(3) WSJ.com Forums :: t=3143

 

[dilloduck]

Good article--if it wasn't for the global warming conspiracy many people would be left with no cause at all. Being aimless is so uncomfortable.

 

[Chris]

A bogus commentary from a wing nut in the WSJ. Very funny.

I love the fact that he lies about what NASA is saying with no attribution whatsoever.

Satellite photos don't lie. Only people lie.

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year.

 

[Red Dawn]

John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago.

This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.

OMFG!

This thread is more fun than a jumpsuit full of weasels!



"Heartland.org"